We have scarcely noticed this collapse, however, because Globalisation has been asserted by its believers to be inevitable - an all-powerful god; a holy trinity of burgeoning markets, unsleeping technology and borderless managers. Opposition or criticism has been treated as little more than romantic paganism. It was powerless before this surprisingly angry god, who would simply strike down with thunderbolts those who faltered and reward his heroes and champions with golden wreaths. If Globalisation has seemed so seductive to societies built upon Greek and Judeo-Christian mythologies, perhaps the reason is this bizarre confusing of salvation, fatalism and punishment. Transferred to economics, in however jumbled a manner, these belief systems are almost irresistible to us.
Link to article:
The end of globalism
Note: The end of globalism
Stumble It!
I read the article, and I am somewhat perplexed. I have always had the impression that Ralston Saul was a small and big L liberal, with a internationalist perspective, and I find it shocking he would write this.
I agree with him, partially. Here is my analysis of what he wrote.
"Globalization was conceived in the 1970s....."
-This is unture. Globalization was largely implemented around that time, but it was discussed at Bilderbeg-type conferences in the 1950s. This is when the idea of a European Union was initially conceived, in all serious behind the scenes.
"Globaliztion is dead."
-He states that gliobalization is dead, and at the same time-that it will take a while to disappear. I AGREE that it is being exposed, (and that Naomi Klein and Bono are having a field day spouting old information) but globaization IS still a major force, and must be reigned in. It ISN'T premature to suggest it is dying, just as the U.S. superpower is dying, BUT they both could hurt a lot of people on the way out. ***I suspect John Ralston Saul wanted such a title to provoke reaction, to a certain extent.
-Back to Canada, the signs that globaization was a coming threat could be seen in the defeat of a truly nationalist prime minister, John Difenbaker, in 1963. Therefore, to suggest globalization started in the 1970s is, as I mentioned earlier, erroneous in my opinion.
-I find it interesting that unlike most Canadians, Saul uses the British spelling of the word "GlobaliSe." Personally, I feel the American "GlobaliZe" is also the Canadian spellng when it comes to this word, but Saul has never been known for focusing on his own country now has he? -He mentioned Canada only twice in 11 pages.
I believe it was Ron Dart who said on this site that John Ralston Saul was chosen one year to address the Canadian....Writers Guild? (Or some association like that.) Ron Dart said that Saul, and others like Margaret Atwood were chosen to speak over the years, but that Canadian nationalists like Robin Matthews and Mel Hurtig would neve be chosen to speak at such a "Liberal" event.
.....This makes it perplexing that Saul would write an article about nationalism.....though he does write about nationalsim from his usual internationalist perspective.
-What is clear is this: Ralston Saul denies or ignores that compassionate consevative "Tory" nationalism ever existed in this country.......he seems very selective in his reading of history, and presumably wants to take credit for being a futurist, predicting a trend. He offers ZERO practical steps to be taken, other than stating what the Malaysian president did.....and reveals NOTHING about his views about Canada.....It's almost as if he sees this reveversal as universal.
My question is this: to a Ron Dart, or a Robin Matthews or whoever:
What is the real John Ralston Saul? Is he coming around to nationalism? Does he understand it? Or is he simply repeating things he's heard, but doesn't understand? Is he the Liberal internationalist do-gooder I thought he was?
Saul's American-esque mis-use of the terms "Social democrat" and "liberal" confuses me as to his real thougths, opinoins, and motivations. He credits nationalism in the present day, decries it in the past, and credits "Social, Liberal-democrats" for improving life between 1945-1973. He also seems obsessed with 1929, the year of the second great depression in 50 years, and suggests that "Everything" started to change after that.
(Of course in Canada, the year's 1939-1974 were the years we had a proper money-system--another thing Saul didn't note, though he did mention Friedman....)
Any thoughts, answers to my above questions?
Hi, Perturbed, thoughtful analysis, but I think you sell Saul short. That he has not been know for focusing on his own country is simply untrue. You should read his 1997 book: "Diary of a Siamese Twin: Reflections on Canada at the End of the Millenium." In my opinion, this is one of the most thoughtful books ever written about what it means to be Canadian, and what is unique and excellent about our country. For me, returning home after being abroad, this book put into words what I had always felt about Canada and that was distinct to us.
Saul also helped found the annual Baldwin-Lafontaine lectures on the CBC. He also brought his attention to things Canadian when he moved to Rideau Hall, saying part of the ceremonial purpose of the Gov-Gen was to show Canadians what was excellent about themselves by serving Canadian wines, promoting Canadian arts etc. When the Queen was in Canada for her visit recently there was a dinner at Rideau Hall where he and his wife invited 50 important Canadians, one for each year of the Queen's reign. Sitting at the Queen's right was Romeo Delaire. Other guests included Tiger Williams, writers etc.
Of course, you put hit the nail on the head, when you say Saul is invited to address establishment functions, while others are not. The point should probably be made that Saul is a philospher and not an activist. The interesting thing is, activists pick up on the ideas he explains in his books. For example, in "Diary of a Siamese Twin" Saul made the point that the old Progressive Conservatives never defeated the Liberals by campaigning from the right, only from the left. As the PC's dissolved, who did I hear making this point repeatedly? David Orchard, in almost exactly the same words. He had clearly read Saul's book. Orchard is probably Canada's foremost activst (along with Mel Hurtig and Maude Barlowe)--he would *never* be invited to an establishment function.
In the end, it is true Saul's mind ranges widely over the world and history but he always brings the principles learned to bear on Canada.
I've never felt anyone can do that the way it's being sold. Never. The way it's being done is you can kill a bunch of innocent, helpless people and create more terrorists. Someone is benefitting from this sick act.
It did come to me though, that it can and will be won inspite of the U.S.'s bombs and bullying. It's happening with Spain taking back their government as the media smeers them with the accusation that by withdrawing from Iraq the terrorists win. Yet,when our governments give us no other choice for disagreeing with their means of fighting terror, we ultimately will be siding with the "terrorists" as we negotiate a peaceful means for winning the war on terror.
I've never been one to stand still for the abuse of anyone else or any helpless creature. There is a part of me that understands the kind of frustration a so called terrorist feels. I consider these people, people without hope. Globalisation has contributed to this hopelessness as far as I'm concerned. I'm HOPEFUL John Ralston Saul is right.
1. If what you say about what Saul said in his book, then I stand corrected.
2. If Orchard said what Saul said regarding the PCs campaigning from the left, then you could be right, but Orchard also wrote "The Fight for Canada." I believe Orchard's book, which included similar thoughts on the subject of the old PCs, was published before 1997, perhaps in 1995? If I'm wrong, I'm sure he's done a lot of research over the decades, although you're probably right that he has read Sual's book.
-I was generally quite impressed with Saul's article, though his ramblings are a little bit hard to fit together....kind of like my posts.
In general, he challenged the corporate-driven-media doctrine, and for that I thank him. He's probably right, i just wish he would be a little more specific/factual with his dates, or simply not use them at all. That would be fine.
-P.S. - You can find a response from the Globe and Mail to this wher eyou probably found this article, on the site: notacolony.ca. The Globe was pretty low, but they are right in saying globalization is not dead yet......I wonder if that dork editor Greenspon was the one behind the Globe's response....probably
-Lastly, I do think that military and police force were NOT the only things holding the various forms of communism together....some people did believe in what was going on.
As for medecine in African clinics--what medecine? Haven't you been reading the papers in the last year? It took a concerted effort to even get the drug companies to *think* about lowering their prices so Africans could afford their drugs, AIDS drugs in particular. There is no guarantee that they will follow through. Globalism, as it is understood means a regime of trade-protection countries world-wide must follow. As a result the African countries *cannot* produce cheap generic drugs. Yet, they cannot afford the brand-name drugs they desperately need. The drug-companies who need their profit let them die. That Globalism for you, and its just great.
There are better treatments, which I neglected to post earlier this month, which I shoudl get to, sorry I've been busy.
---
Dave Ruston
I think we need to cut Saul some slack for not being more critical publicly, as he is in a pretty diplomatic position. He could get Clarkson's position booted out of power permanently, if he flamed the Liberals.
His article was pretty irreverent for a Harper's story. I think it also ran in another (Auustralisn?) magazine, but he did ruffle some feathers.
-Dave, you HAVE to read the Globe editors resp\nse on notacolony.ca if you haven't. I saw Edward Greenspon on TV, and he's dorkier than you would ever imagine from seeing his picture in the paper.
Saul has been publically denouncing Globalism since at least 1996. Check out "The Unconscious Civilization". This was the published version of the Massey Lectures. You can't get more public than the Massey Lectures on CBC Radio.
I think most of these criticisms of Saul are underpinned by a complete ignorance of what he has actually written. I think you are aping what the right-wing press has written about him.
Right.
---
Dave Ruston